Letter VII. If you are LDS (Mormon) and haven't read Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII, you need to read it during 2018 to understand Church history and the Book of Mormon. This blog discusses the role the letter has played in our understanding of Church history.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Richard Lloyd Anderson wrote an excellent article titled "The Credibility of the Book of Mormon Translators" that was a chapter in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1982), 213–37.

I highly recommend the article, which explains why Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery deserve to be believed. It concludes with this:

A secular society hardly recognizes that decisions can be made in terms of future accountability. But the Prophet reveals this perspective in adjusting a conflict with the intense comment, “I would be willing to be weighed in the scale of truth today in this matter, and risk it in the day of judgment.” [61]The Prophet and Cowdery kept journals with periodic and profound introspection. Thus Cowdery’s editorial farewell rings true in saying that he had well counted the cost of trying to “persuade others to believe as myself,” and he willingly faced the “judgment seat of Christ,” who would see “the integrity of my heart.” [62] The names of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery led the rest in certifying the truth of the events and teachings of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, the first book to name the messengers restoring both the Book of Mormon and the two priesthoods. [63] The preface, stamped with Oliver Cowdery’s phraseology, expresses their solemn view of eternal responsibility: “We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man’s labor be given him.”
_____________

But there is some tremendous irony here. First, the article doesn't mention Oliver's 8 letters about Church history, including Letter VII. Was that an intentional omission, an oversight, or an intervention by an editor who rejects Letter VII and its implications?

Second, the book containing this article was edited by Noel Reynolds, who, I'm informed, is a staunch Mesoamerican proponent who insists Cumorah is not in New York. IOW, he believes Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about the New York Cumorah.

In my ongoing effort to understand why LDS scholars and educators reject Letter VII, this article demonstrates the major problem of the Mesomaniacs who want us to believe Joseph and Oliver were credible and reliable about literally everything except Letter VII.

The citation to Letter VII is awesome, but think about this a moment. Why does Joseph Smith use the passive voice only for this clause? And to what plates is he referring? And why is the hill not named, when it is named in Letter VII itself?
____________________

The only plates Joseph refers to in this preface are the plates of Lehi and the plates of Nephi. He mentions "the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon."

Why is this?

The Preface follows two reproductions of the Title Page (the Title Page itself, followed by the copyright application that quotes the entire Title Page). The Title Page describes the plates as the two sets of abridgments, plus the sealing by Moroni. But it never mentions the plates of Nephi.

Of course, this is the reason the Lord had to tell Joseph about the plates of Nephi in D&C 10; i.e., he didn't have the plates of Nephi when he was in Harmony. Don't forget, he said the Title Page was translated from the last leaf of the plates, and he translated it in Harmony.

I think this explains why Joseph used the passive voice in the Preface. He not only didn't have the plates of Nephi when he was in Harmony (because they were not in Moroni's stone box), but he didn't get them himself from the Hill Cumorah. Someone else did, and then brought them to Fayette for Joseph to translate.

Consequently, Joseph wrote that "the plates of which hath been spoken," i.e., the plates of Nephi he translated to replace the lost 116 pages, "were found." He didn't find them; someone else did.

Hence, he wrote in the passive voice here.

With this understanding, note 5 in the JSP is incorrect. JS did not remove the plates of Nephi from the Hill Cumorah.

And note 5 is misleading because it refers merely to "a hill" even though Letter VII clearly identifies the hill as the Book of Mormon Cumorah--right there in New York.

Friday, June 9, 2017

I spoke at the Mormon History Association's annual conference last week on the topic of the Mormons and the Mounds. In my presentation, I focused on mounds around St. Louis (aka, Mound City), famous mounds in LDS history, including Enon and Zelph's mound, and the mounds in and around Nauvoo.

I'm going to use the PowerPoint presentation at upcoming events, and the presentation was quite different from this paper, but people have asked about my paper so here is the first draft of the paper that I'm posting here for comments/input. I've been asked to submit it for publication, but it needs more work and I'm waiting for some additional developments anyway.
________________

The Mormons and the
Mounds

Jonathan Neville

MHA Presentation

June 2017

St. Louis, Missouri

ABSTRACT

“Mormonism sprang
from the mounds,” wrote Roger Kennedy, former director of the Smithsonian
National Museum of American History. Even before the Book of Mormon was
published, Mormonism was linked to the Moundbuilder civilizations of North
America. One man who claimed to have heard a reading of the lost 116 pages said
“It was a description of the mounds about the country and similar to the ‘Book
of Mormon.’” In 1843, Joseph Smith apparently alluded to the 116 pages when he
said the Book of Mormon spoke about sacred burial places. Several authors have
placed the Book of Mormon among other 19th century books about the
origins of the Moundbuilders. At one
time, there were over a million ancient earth mounds in North America;
approximately 100,000 remain today. Many of these mounds are located in the
territory from western New York through western Missouri where early Mormon
history took place. Three specific mounds figure prominently in LDS history:
Zelph’s mound in Illinois, the Kinderhook mound, also in Illinois, from which
the six brass plates were taken, and Enon mound in Ohio. Until the early Saints
leveled them to build homes and farms, Indian mounds dominated Nauvoo. Joseph
Smith purchased one and resorted to it from time to time. Less well known are
the mounds located just north of Nauvoo that have recently been discovered and
preserved. The connections between Mormonism and the mounds of North America
have yet to be fully explored.

The Mormons and the
Mounds

Twenty-five miles
east southeast of the site of the 2017 Mormon History Association’s 52nd
Annual Conference in St. Charles, Missouri, sits one of only 22 UNESCO World
Heritage Sites in the United States: Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site.

According to
UNESCO, Cahokia is the largest pre-Columbian settlement north of Mexico.[1] It
includes Monks Mound, the largest prehistoric earthwork in the Western
Hemisphere. Cahokia was a prominent feature in the 1830s and 1840s when Mormons
passed through the St. Louis region on Mississippi River steamboats. The site
originally included 120 mounds and covered about 4,000 acres. Native Americans
lived there between 800-1400 A.D. (the Mississippian period), so it is
post-Book of Mormon era, but many other significant mound sites along the
Mississippi River did flourish during Book of Mormon times.

Elm Point Mound
was located just three miles north of the St. Charles Convention Center until
it was leveled for residential development. The mound contained burials covered
with limestone slabs and featuring red ochre staining. Projectile points, a
grooved axe, and other artifacts were found at this site before its
destruction.[2] A mile
to the east is a district still called Les Mamelles, named after two 150-foot
mounds that looked out over the plains to the north situated between the
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.

St. Louis itself
was once nicknamed Mound City because of the many large mounds once located
within current city limits. The largest of these, Big Mound, located on what is
now Mound Street and North Broadway, would have been visible to Mormons
traveling to Nauvoo from the Gulf of Mexico or from the Ohio River. Big Mound
served as a landmark for Mississippi River steamboat pilots until it was
leveled in 1868.

The sole remaining
mound in St. Louis is Sugarloaf Mound. It has been purchased by the Osage
Nation for preservation.

While Big Mound
may have been one of the first ancient Indian mounds experienced by European Mormons
immigrating to Nauvoo, the mounds were commonplace for American Mormons in the
19th Century. Joseph Smith’s birth state of Vermont features
hundreds of ancient stone structures. Ethan Smith, the Vermont preacher, wrote A View of the Hebrews in part to explain
the origins of the “walled towns,” “Forts,” and “watchtowers” he was familiar
with.

New York State was
rich with ancient mounds. New York governor DeWitt Clinton wrote about numerous
such sites. In 1817, he wrote that a mound near Ridgway, Genesee County, about
65 miles northwest of Palmyra, contained piles of skeletons that “were
deposited there by their conquerors.”[3]

When the early
Saints moved from New York to Ohio, they encountered Indian mounds everywhere
they went. Some remain, such as Indian Point, located just 14 miles northeast
of the Kirtland Temple. This ancient Indian enclosure features two earthen
walls bordered by ditches and protected on two sides of a triangle by steep
cliffs. The walls were built around 140 B.C. The Zion’s Camp march passed
several mounds, including two that were specifically noted in the historical
record: Enon mound outside of Dayton, Ohio, and Zelph’s mound near the Illinois
River.

Ancient Indian
mounds are common in Missouri as well. According to the State Historic
Preservation Office, “There are 37,000 known sites in the state, but that’s
probably a small fraction of the total.”[4]

The connections
between Mormonism and the mounds have been addressed in several books and
articles. This paper provides a brief overview of the literature and introduces
some new information that deserves additional focus and discussion.

Archaeological and Anthropological
Background

Indian mounds have
long been part of American history. George Washington used ancient mounds for
military positions. Thomas Jefferson excavated a mound (one of many “barrows”
in the area) found on his property at Monticello.[5] In
1894, the Smithsonian’s Bureau of Ethnology published a book by Cyrus Thomas
that depicted a map of around 100,000 mound sites, located mainly along the
rivers of the Midwestern and Southeastern United States. Many of these sites
have multiple mound structures, some as many as 100.

One researcher
wrote, “After visiting several thousand mounds and reviewing the literature, I
am fairly certain that over 1,000,000 mounds once existed and that perhaps
100,000 still exist. Oddly, some new mound sites are discovered each year by
archaeological surveys in remote areas.”[6]

This paper will
discuss an example of new mound sites found within the last year a few miles
north of Nauvoo.

Ancient Native
American civilizations that built mounds have been classified into three major cultures
based on era and the types of mounds they built.

1. The Archaic
period (4500-1000 BCE). There are only a few major examples of earth structures
built during the Archaic period, including Watson Brake and Poverty Point in
Louisiana.

a. Adena. Adena sites are found in
the Midwestern and Eastern United States including Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio,
Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York. Only a few of
the hundreds of Adena mounds have survived to the present. Mounds were used for
burials, ceremonies, and gathering places. Enon Mound, the second largest
conical burial mound in Ohio, is probably Adena. The largest Adena mound in the
United States is in Moundsville, West Virginia, along the Ohio River. People
tunneled into it in 1838, destroying archaeological evidence.

b. Hopewell. The Hopewell culture
ranged from Florida to southeastern Canada (the Great Lakes area) and east to
Kansas. The people lived along the rivers, particularly the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers and their tributaries. They built the giant geometric
earthworks found in Ohio, including the Newark Earthworks that are the largest
in the world and are aligned to specific sunrise and moonrise events. Hopewell
cultures had distinctive regional attributes. Zelph’s mound fits within the
Hopewell culture. The Kinderhook mound probably dates to the Adena era, and it
reportedly had a conical shape typical of Adena mounds, but there doesn’t
appear to be any discussion in the literature about this mound ever being dated
or studied.

3. The
Mississippian period (900-1450 CE). There is growing evidence of a link between
Mesoamerican cultures and the Mississippian cultures, possibly a result of the
collapse of the Mayan empire.

People who believe
the Book of Mormon took place in North America generally relate the Adena to
the Jaredites and the Hopewell to the Nephites.

What Constitutes a Mound

When
archaeologists identify a “mound” site, it is usually more significant than
merely a pile of dirt created by humans. Mounds varied greatly in size. Some
might be a foot high with a circumference of two or three feet. Others may be
tens of feet high, covering acres. Monks Mound is ten stories high and covers
nearly 14 acres.

Geometric shapes,
including squares and circles, are precisely measured and can encompass 20
acres or more. Some mound structures were topped with wooden pickets as
defensive walls. Others were covered with cement. Some are shaped as animal
effigies. Some follow natural ridges.

Dr. Roger Kennedy,
the former director of the Smithsonian's American History Museum, addressed a
misperception about earth mounds, noting that earth mounds are actually
buildings.

Build and building are also very old words, often used in this text [his
book] as they were when the English language was being invented, to denote
earthen structures.

About 1150,
when the word build was first
employed in English, it referred to the construction of an earthen grave. Three
hundred and fifty years later, an early use of the term to build up was the
description of the process by which King Priam of Troy constructed a “big town
of bare earth.” So when we refer to the earthworks of the Ohio and Mississippi
Valleys as buildings no one should be surprised.[7]

Literature Review

Painting with a
broad brush, literature about the connections between Mormons and mounds can be
divided into two categories: those who seek to link Mormonism to the mounds,
and those who seek to distance Mormonism from the mounds.

From a purely
historical perspective, those linking Mormonism with the mounds seem to have a
stronger argument. They rely on original documents and contemporary accounts.
This group includes critics of Mormonism as well as supporters.

Those distancing
Mormonism from the mounds tend to rely on semantic arguments against original
sources or seek to avoid the question altogether.

These different
approaches manifest themselves most often in discussion and analysis of the
three specific mounds that appear most often in the literature: Zelph’s mound
and the Kinderhook mound, both in Illinois, and Enon mound in Ohio. I’ll cite
examples after offering an overview of some of the best-known works on Mormon
history that address the mound connection.

The most
comprehensive analysis of the connections between Mormonism and the mounds is
probably Dan Vogel’s 1986 book, Indian
Origins and the Book of Mormon: Religious Solutions from Columbus to Joseph
Smith (Signature Books). Vogel seeks to understand how the Book of Mormon
“fit into the ongoing discussion about the origin and nature of ancient
American cultures” (Introduction). His Chapter 4 focuses on the mound-builder
myths. He views the Book of Mormon as a product of 19th Century
thought and experience.

Fawn Brodie
focused on the ancient American mounds, claiming that “The mystery of the
Moundbuilders attracted no one more than Joseph Smith.”[8]
Earl Wunderli also invoked the moundbuilders to explain the Book of Mormon.
“Joseph Smith’s physical surroundings included the Indian burial mounds that
people said were piles of slain warriors from antiquity.”[9]

Many supporters of
Mormonism tend to downplay the links to the moundbuilders.

For example, in Rough Stone Rolling, Richard Bushman
observes that “Indian relics turned up in newly plowed furrows, and remnants of
old forts and burial mounds were accessible to the curious, but none was known
in Palmyra or Manchester…Burial mounds, supposedly a stimulus for investigation
of the Indians, receive only the slightest mention [in the Book of Mormon, Alma
16:11].”[10] He does
briefly mention Zelph’s mound and the Kinderhook incident, but he deliberately
avoids the debate about mounds and the Book of Mormon. For example, he quotes
excerpts from the letter Joseph Smith wrote to Emma on June 4, 1834, from the
banks of the Mississippi River during Zion’s Camp, but he omits a key phrase.
Joseph wrote of “wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting
occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that
once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as
a proof of its divine authenticity,”[11]
but Bushman quotes only “wandering over the plains,” omitting the rest of
Joseph’s sentence.[12]

Terryl Givens
writes that “A major appeal of the text itself, to both the historically
curious and the flippantly cynical, was its claim to tell the public something
about the people whose burial mounds lie scattered across the prairies of the
Old Northwest, whose bones and artifacts emerged from the dust with provocative
regularity…. Once the Book of Mormon is cast in these terms, by angels,
prophets, editors, and satirists, the historical approach becomes double-edged,
an irresistible tool of apologists and detractors alike.”[13]

Most articles
focus on the two best-known mound-related topics: Kinderhook and Zelph.

J. Michael Hunter
introduced his article about Mormon archaeological zeal by writing “In 1843,
Robert Wiley unearthed a set of six brass plates in a burial mound near
Kinderhook, Illinois.”[14] Several
authors have written and presented on the topic of the Kinderhook plates,
including Mark Ashurst-McGee, Don Bradley, Brian M. Hauglid, and Jason
Frederick Peters. In 1981, the Ensign
published an article that took the positions that (i) the Kinderhook plates
were a hoax and (ii) Joseph Smith never attempted to translate them.[15]

Zelph’s mound in
Illinois was first reported in the journals of participants in Zion’s Camp.
Their accounts were amalgamated for an entry in History of the Church, but they
have been reassessed individually. Kenneth Godfrey argued that the accounts
“are inconsistent” and the skeleton “cannot, therefore, provide conclusive
evidence for anything.”[16]
Donald Q. Cannon provided greater context for the incident by referring to
additional corroborating statements by Joseph Smith’s contemporaries as well as
evidence from the archaeological and anthropological studies of the area,
noting that “Some of the fabric recovered from the archaeological digs
conducted at the bluff dates between 100 BC and AD 400… Remarkably, items
discovered in the Zelph Mound area fit precisely within the parameters of the
Book of Mormon historical chronology.”[17]

John H. Wittorf
addressed Kinderhook and Zelph, but also treated Enon mound. Wittorf concluded
that “in only one of three cases where Joseph Smith encountered the remains of
the “Mound Builders”—the “Zelph incident”— did he even suggest a relationship
between these peoples and those described in the Book of Mormon, the exact
nature of which however, is still uncertain.”[18]

The Enon mound
incident may not be well known. On May 16, 1834, Zion’s camp was in Ohio,
traveling between Springfield and Dayton. Joseph’s journal records

About nine
o’clock . . . we came into a piece of thick woods of recent growth, where I
told them that I felt much depressed in spirit and lonesome, and that there had
been a great deal of bloodshed in that place, remarking that whenever a man of
God is in a place where many have been killed, he will feel lonesome and
unpleasant, and his spirits will sink.

In about
forty rods from where I made this observation we came through the woods, and
saw a large farm, and there near the road on our left, was a mound sixty feet
high, containing human bones. The mound was covered with apple trees, and
surrounded with oat fields, the ground being level for some distance around.[19]

The large mound
Joseph referred to was the Enon mound, located about seven miles west of
Springfield. The mound still stands today in the town of Enon. It has been
identified as an Adena mound, based on its size and shape, as well as artifacts
retrieved from it.

Wittorf notes a
hearsay account of an old gentleman who dug into the mound and deposited a
collection of artifacts. He also suggests the dead men Joseph referred to could
have been Shawnees killed in the battle of Piqua in August 1870. Piqua was
about five miles west of Springfield.

Levi Hancock, who
accompanied Joseph on the Zion’s Camp march, provided the most detailed account
of the Zelph incident in his journal. Joseph’s statement about Zelph prompted
him to also record what had happened at Enon.
“I then remembered what he [Joseph Smith] had said a few days before
while passing many mounds on our way that was left of us; said he, ‘there are
the bodies of wicked men who have died and are angry at us: if they can take
advantage of us they will, for if we live they will have no hope.’ I could not
comprehend it but supposed it was all right.”[20]

Because Hancock
connected Zelph with the Enon mound statement, he apparently inferred that
Joseph Smith was relating both mounds to Book of Mormon peoples. Or Joseph may
have made this connection explicit. It was just a few days later that Joseph
wrote his letter telling Emma that he and his men had been “wandering over the
plains of the Nephites… roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of
the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones.”

Mormon Connections with Native American
Indian Mounds

This paper does
not assess the historical and cultural context of the Mound-builder tradition
and whatever relationship it may have to Mormonism. Instead, it looks at
specific examples that have not been covered in depth in the literature to
suggest possibilities for additional research.

The 116 pages. In the summer of 1828,
Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages of the manuscript Joseph Smith dictated.
Little is known about the manuscript, except that it constituted Mormon’s
abridgment of the Book of Lehi and it covered essentially the same history as
the current books of 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon. The 116 pages were
reportedly burned or stolen; at any rate, they have not been recovered so far.

One account suggests
the 116 pages described the mounds in North America. W. R. Hine was a resident
of Colesville, New York. He provided a statement in 1884 in which he claims he
knew Joseph Smith and his father. He relates a version of the lost 116 pages
that has Lucy Harris taking the 116 pages and giving them to a Dr. Seymour, who
lived not far from Mr. Hine. Hine stated, “Dr. Seymour lived one and a half
miles from me. He read most of it to me when my daughter Irene was born; he
read them to his patients about the country. It was a description of the mounds
about the country and similar to the ‘Book of Mormon.’”[21]

The current text
of the Book of Mormon does not mention mounds. It refers to bodies being “heap
up upon the face of the earth” in several places. Alma 50:1 says Moroni caused
his people “that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about
all the cities.” If Hines was correct that the 116 pages included “a
description of the mounds about the country,” the lost manuscript would link
the text more closely to the North American setting than does the current text.
This would further support the claims of both critics and defenders who link
the Book of Mormon to the Moundbuilders.

Joseph Smith’s 1843 sermon. On April
16, 1843, Joseph Smith’s journal relates that he gave a sermon at the temple at
10 a.m. He read a letter about the death of Lorenzo Barns and discussed the
topic of burial.

it is to
have the privilige [sic] of having our dead buried on the land where god has
appointed to gather his saints together.--- & where there will be nothing
but saints, where they may have the privilege of laying their bodies where the
Son will make his appearance. & where they may hear the. sound of the trump
that shall call them forth to behold him, that in the morn of the resurrection
they may come forth in a body. & come right up out of their graves, &
strike hands immediately in eternal glory & felicity rather than to be
scattered thousands of miles apart. There is something good & sacred to me
in this thing. the place where a man is
buried has been sacred to me.--this subject is made mention of In Book of
Mormon & Scriptures. to the aborigines regard the burying places of their
fathers is more sacred than any thing else.[22](emphasis added)

The portion in
bold is of interest for two reasons. First, there is no place in the current
Book of Mormon that mentions that the place where a man is buried is sacred.
Joseph seems to be recalling a passage from the lost 116 pages, which, in his
mind, were part of the Book of Mormon he translated.

Second, the sacred
nature of a burial place is the basic premise for Native American Indian
reverence for the burial mounds. Joseph alludes to this in the next passage
when he refers to the “aborigines,” whom he considered Lamanites. This sermon
may be a direct link between the 116 pages and the Native American Indian
mounds.

The journal is in
the handwriting of Willard Richards. He apparently inserted the phrase “this
subject is made mention of” after he wrote the main phrase, probably when he
found a moment to catch up with what Joseph was saying.

Mounds in Nauvoo. There are several
references to mounds in Nauvoo. The lithograph by John Childs, 1844, made from
a plat by Gustavus Hills in 1842 depicts several mounds in the city. A
prominent one is between plats 82 and 83, just west of the temple.

Joseph’s journal
records a few interactions with mounds in and around Nauvoo, including these.

Note 245:
JS purchased the southwest quarter of Section 25, the southeast quarter of
Section 26, and the northeast quarter of Section 35, within Township 7 North,
Range 8 West, for $1,500 from Ethan Kimball of Orange County, Vermont. Hiram
Kimball served as Ethan Kimball’s attorney in the transaction. The “mound” was
located in the southwest quarter of Section 25. JS paid Kimball two weeks
later. (Hancock Co., IL, Deed Records, 27 June 1842, vol. K, pp. 329–330,
microfilm 954,599, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL; JS, Journal, 27 June
1842.)

27 June 1842 •
Monday

Monday 27
Transacting business in general through the day. borrowed money of Bros. Wooley Spencer &c. & made payment To
Hiram Kimball for the mound.

Mounds in Nauvoo. In recent years, more
Hopewell mound complexes have been discovered just north of Nauvoo. Some were
looted in the 1970s, but others have been found untouched.

Wilson and Jenny
Curlee moved to Nauvoo and purchased the property on which the mounds were located.[24]
They organized an Eagle Scout project to restore some of the looted mounds, and
archaeologists from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency have certified
these as authentic ancient sites. In the fall of 2016, a new complex was
discovered in the area.

The increasing
awareness of the numerous Hopewell mounds in the Nauvoo area may give renewed
attention to the connection between Mormons and the mounds. When workers dug a
utility trench between the Red Brick Store and the Joseph Smith Homestead, the
equipment churned up Hopewell bones and artifacts. This area is adjacent to the
Smith Family Cemetery, leading to the possibility that Joseph Smith, his wife
Emma, his brother Hyrum and his parents are buried in a Hopewell burial site.

If “Mormonism
sprang from the mounds” as Roger Kennedy suggested, it seems only fitting that
Joseph Smith would be buried among the Moundbuilders.

Conclusion

The connections
between Mormonism and the Moundbuilders have received considerable attention,
but mainly from outsiders and critics. It is time for historians to re-assess
these connections, especially in light of recent discoveries about Hopewell
mounds in the Nauvoo area.

Monday, June 5, 2017

I just returned from another trip to Nauvoo and once again, I was struck with the seriousness of the question of Letter VII.

Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII, which Joseph Smith helped write and specifically endorsed at least three times, declares it is a fact that the Hill Cumorah in New York is the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon (Mormon 6:6).

During Joseph's lifetime, most literate members of the Church knew about Letter VII. Not only was it published in the Kirtland Messenger and Advocate, but at Joseph's direction it was reprinted in the 1841 Gospel Reflector in Philadelphia, the 1841 Times and Seasons in Nauvoo, and in a special pamphlet published in England in 1844. It was in this context that Joseph referred to Cumorah in D&C 128.

When Joseph was alive, everyone knew Cumorah was in New York. It was never a question, and Oliver, as Assistant President of the Church, had declared it was a fact.

After Joseph's death, Letter VII was published in the Millennial Star and the Improvement Era.

But it has never been published in the Ensign.

____________________

The New York setting for Cumorah has been consistently taught even in General Conference at least through the 1970s.

No alternative setting for Cumorah has ever been taught in General Conference.

Despite Letter VII, there remain many LDS scholars and educators who insist the "real" Cumorah is somewhere in southern Mexico. These people promote the "Mesoamerican" model of Book of Mormon geography, along with the so-called "Two Cumorahs" theory. They claim Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah being in New York, but now they, the scholars and educators, have figured out where Cumorah must be and for the last few decades, they have been working hard to persuade members of the Church that they are right and Joseph and Oliver were wrong.

In fact, one of the leading BYU scholars has disparaged those Church members who believe what Joseph and Oliver taught. He wrote, "There remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York, but any such idea is manifestly absurd." [John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Codex, p. 688, emphasis added.]

Mormon's Codex was published by Deseret Book and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU. The Foreword was written by Terryl Givens, who wrote "John Sorenson has again upped the ante with what will immediately serve as the high-water mark of scholarship on the Book of Mormon." [p. xvi.]

Give Brother Sorenson credit for expressing what these LDS scholars and educators actually think of those members of the Church who accept what Oliver and Joseph taught about Cumorah being in New York.

The scholars' disdainful approach extends beyond Letter VII and members of the Church who accept it. They scholars are also disdainful of Church leaders who agree with what Joseph and Oliver taught about Cumorah, including Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G. Romney and Mark E. Peterson.

Every time you see or hear someone promoting the Mesoamerican theory, you know they think that what Oliver wrote about Cumorah being in New York is "manifestly absurd." They think that when Joseph endorsed Oliver's writing, he was endorsing a false narrative that misled the Church.

I'm not saying anyone has to accept Letter VII. If you want to think it is "manifestly absurd" because LDS scholars and educators are telling you that, it's fine with me.

What I am saying is that every member of the Church today should be as familiar with Letter VII as were the members who lived during Joseph Smith's lifetime.

If people choose to reject Letter VII in favor of the two-Cumorahs theory, fine. But I think it's a big mistake to suppress the existence of Letter VII just because the dominant LDS scholars and educators disagree with hit.

Original Letter VII

The earliest version of Letter VII available today is in the July 1835 Messenger and Advocate, published in Kirtland. You can see it by clicking here. Go to issue 10, JULY 1835, and scroll to Letter VII.

This is the place

About Me

I like the way Daft Punk wear robot suits in public. I'd rather focus on the music than the personalities. Same with Internet discussions; I'd rather focus on the information and the logic of the arguments than the personalities. That said, people want to know I'm a real person, so here's a photo of me at the UN in New York.

Disclaimer

The author writes this blog in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other person or institution.